We obviously need a law prohibitting anyone with a criminal mind from associating with any known brand for fear that it will harm the entire inustry of North America.

When asked for comment, Mr. LaBatt said "we are doing this for the children. Think of how they would otherwise suffer from not being able to enjoy a beer for fear of its association with violent criminals.."

Reached in his cozy confines in Berlin, Mr. Magnotta said, "what's a LaBatt? I just used a stick and a knife...?

News was also received indicating Facebook was considering action against LaBatt on the grounds that but for the LaBatt's beer, Magnott would not have seemed interesting enough to have his photo taken and included in Facebook and thus absent the beer, Facebook would not have had its valuable image and IP rights tarnished by the reference in the newspaper.

There are other sites (not the best but a collection) at screenshots.com. These will be kept for historical purposes as that is what the site does - historical static images of the home page of each domain name.

So just think. Based on the rationale supporting this proposed law, all of those unknown manufacturers who were "forced" to sell their products in the early days for less than the market price, are now able to be "fairly" rewarded by recovering a portion of any second-had sales that took place. Used car dealers beware.....

"As some of us have pointed out over and over and over again, there was never any actual need for the .xxx TLD. Porn sites are quite happy with their .com's, and with their investment in them. Non-porn sites have no reason to want a .xxx domain. Thus, there was never any demand for this"

The same could be said for any innovative product or service (like the car, the shopping mall, the radio, etc). All of them disruptive what had previously existed. This is insufficient to prevent the innovation.

As for defensive registrations, the same exists in every Tld (cokesucks.com, cokesucks.org, cokesucks.co.uk).

Pricing is another issue and the monopolistic aspects of a registry (required from a technical side), gives credence to pricing at a reasonable cost+ level (like the old system with utilities).

The difference here is that the registry has learned from the past and is pricing their registrations accordingly. Whether they are free to do so is another matter. I am reminded about litigation that was filed against ICANN and VeriSign over the pricing of .coms (guaranteed price increases, etc). That litigation was undertaken by the ICA, a non-profit organization promoting legitimate domain name use. Notwithstanding appeals for support, very little was contributed by the outside world to further the cause.

The above notwithstanding, the complaints from the IP crowd are easily ignored. I remember the days of domain tasting. That system allowed you to test a domain to see if it had any traffic at all. If it did you kept it, If not it was dropped. It would have been a great thing for brand owners who could cheaply register every variation of their brand and then keep only those with traffic - pointing all of these "free" customers to their main site. Instead, they killed it and were left with chasing domains via the UDRP or litigation - both relative expensive in volume. They now complain that given the opportunity to avoid these alternatives is "also" too expensive. I am left with little sympathy.

Those in the porn industry are complaining in the same vein - they want nothing but to defend their existing turf without cost.

As for whether .xxx will be a good idea, the market will decide that - users will either use it or not. That is as it should be.

I suspect that Righthaven is trying to avoid being subjected to giving testimony in open court. While I am sure there may have been depositions, a trial is the only place where testimony becomes a matter of public record. Discovery responses, whether in writing (interrogatories) or oral (depositions) are not a part of the public court record unless and until they are introduced formally as evidence.

Further, attorneys often play games with discovery (objecting and giving vague answers). If one party is not satisfied with a discovery answer, they must attempt to negotiate resolution informally and only then may file a motion in which they must detail the question and the response and why it is insufficient - obviously a costly and time-consuming process. None of this burden exists at a trial where the judge is in control and will instantly rule on objections.

All sorts of questions could be asked during the trial of both the principals of RH and their "backers". The manner and method of negotiations of the famous agreement and its amendments would all come out.

A trial record also makes it much more difficult to appeal. While an appeal claiming an error of law is heard denovo (a do over of the legal issues), factual determinations made by a trial court (or jury) are subject to challenge only if they are clearly incorrect. This is a much more difficult standard to sustain on appeal.

It is an interesting procedural issue. The court could allow the trial so as to gain evidence concerning the standing issue (which previously has been based on limited evidence submitted without testimony, cross-examination, etc). The court would most likely allow the entire trial to occur since it would not be efficient to stop it half-way through.

Absent a motion by one of the parties, the court is well within its discretion to allow matters to go forward - particularly given a lack of objection by the defendant. The position of RH (that there is standing) further supports the court's allowing a trial to occur.

So, hats off to the defendant here. Good call. I hope the court refuses to take the bait and forces the trial to go forward. The testimony will be priceless to read and make RH's appeals that much more difficult from a credibility stand-point.

not under the banner DUE PROCESS but it is there. How about this? Section 3(b), page 10. Title: "Seizure of the subjmect domain names constitutes an unlawful prior restraint on Puerto 80's users' protected speech." The entire argument is about prior restraint.

Really, I am beginning to think you just like to argue regardless of the subject matter.

As to PACER, having been an attorney during its entire existence, I know of a great many instances in which documents are not posted automatically upon filing. It is a court-by-court system.

As to the notice, I am almost ready to take back my comments about possibly being obtuse. Due Process must occur BEFORE the government action. There are very few exceptions and this is not one of them. Again, your comments indicate you have not actually read the motion or the laws upon which ICE based its seizures. Go back and read them and then I am happy to have this debate. Otherwise I have things to do.

As to "procedures that the Supreme Court has said satisfy the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause" do tell, what are these procedures and how do they apply to this case?

Sorry but I am trying to figure out if you are obtuse or merely engaging in mind games. I hope it is only the fact that we are reading words on a screen and not actually speaking.

1. The case is too new to be in PACER. The motion is the only thing I have seen (though I continue to check).

2. notice. Can we admit they are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole here? Notice (to be constitutionally sufficient) must be reasonably calculated to provide the defendant with actual knowledge that a legal action has been commenced. While it is at least arguable that tacking the notice on the Custom House bulletin board MAY be sufficient if I am an importer (or have a custom's agent) of physical goods that arrive via that port of entry, it is dubious at best to apply that notice provision to a domain name which is not imported at all but merely appears on your screen at the behest of the browser?

If your only "notice" of the government action is after-the-fact (as in WTF happened to my website), you well know that is not notice in a constitutional sense so don't go there.

3. And, one point you keep missing (or ignoring). The point is not about the seizure. The point is about DUE PROCESS - the right to know the charge and have the matter heard by a judge (you know the ole separation of powers bit).

4. I am sure you know about due process. It appears everywhere. Have you never received a speeding ticket and been asked to sign the ticket to confirm you have been "notified"? The message above your signature confirms that the signature is merely notice and not an indication of guilt. Of course the government still has to go to the trouble and expense of mailing you a notice but what the hell.

Or, have you ever challenged a charge on your credit card? That is possible because federal laws, preserving the concept of due process, require that the processor (VISA, MASTERCARD) assume the role of processor and remove themselves from the underlying dispute leaving it as between you and the merchant. Neither VISA nor MC say to you "well you have a credit card with this number and the merchant tells us they were presented with the card so it must be you and you must pay.....".

Or, how about your right to receive a copy of your credit report and to submit a challenge to a data entry?

Or, taking on something closer to home, you were notified of the purpose of the "report" button but saw fit to object to its use in the comments above. The flagger did not have to tell you that they had used the button (but they did). You went on, however, to try to argue your point. That, is due process in action my friend - the opportunity to make your argument known to a disinterested (not that Mike is necessarily disinterested) third party for resolution BEFORE action is taken based on the flagging. Whether anyone agreed with either side is not the issue - the issue is you were informed in an open manner calculated to achieve actual notice on your part.

You too quickly push these things aside arguing that a site that the government has the right to shut down and/or seize a site that violates the copyright laws. You argue that notice is sufficient if the notice is written in some statute as if Congress were comprised of constitutional magicians. I do not care if the law provides notice one way or another, the government may not seize property in the absence of due process. Due Process is NOT compliance with the laws. Due Process is compliance with the CONSTITUTION. And the Constitution is itself beholding to the people. We should all read that document at least once and a bit of the history of those who wrote it.

You forget that no one argues with your conclusion. EVERYONE argues with your premise. Your arguments all assume that your premise is correct (e.g. that the sites are actually criminally infringing). No one has made any determination as to your premise - that is the point. The manner and method of protecting constitutional rights is the proper issue - the rest we will get to in good time.

Sure due process costs more but AC, YOU ALL are worth it - notwithstanding your often collective desire to engage in grammatical surgery to make an irrelevant point.

Personally, I don't like the degree of animosity in the comments being bantered about in the comments. They seem petty and trite. There is a difference between having he right to say something and whether you should say it. "Hands off the keyboard" should be a mantra practiced more often by all (myself included).

I look forward to reading this blog every day and try not to get sucked into the site and the comments (although I really did like the comments about flagging - THEY were funny).

AC - "Why would anyone from ICE go to jail? Were these sites not rife with illegal content, that to the naked eye would appear to be part of the site? Would the sites in question not exist for the major purpose of helping to prove access to illegally obtained content?"

And exactly how do we know this? Oh yes, I forgot, the great ICE MAN said so. So if the police catch the bank robber in the act (notice I did not use a Child Porn example), they can just shoot him because the evidence was so clear as to not require a trial. Just think of the savings! We could do away with the entire judicial branch and all those lawyers.

"By the way, you ran away from the other discussion before you answered the question as to whether sites that exist primarily to link to child pornography should be protected under your tortured view of free speech. Judging from your comments, I'd say yes. But I wanted to give you chance to deny it, though I'm guessing you'll cut and run again."

Are you really obtuse or are you simply promoting your employer? The entire issue is NOT about whether a site can be taken down. The entire issue is DUE PROCESS. Even the most rancid of child abusers is given a day in court - or would you rather simply take them out and shoot them first?

"You either do not realize or do not care that limitless "free speech" rights can have some pretty horrendous consequences. Maybe that's Ok with you, not me however"

Having read a great many of the comments to this article and many others, it appears that you are enjoying free speech and others are complaining of the horrendous consequences. However, you continue to enjoy and others continue to apparently suffer but also to tolerate. I see no problems here.

I may not like what you have to say and find it rarely correctly backed up with authority but I will forever defend your right to have your say. Sound familiar?

The scary part is the lack of English language skills in the language:

"every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State."

Does the "who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States..." ONLY apply to "every foreign agent and every person"?

If so, is merely being a member of an "organization subject to foreign control" mean you must register automatically? So if I am a member of the Bar Association of Barcelona I must register?